Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica
2016 FCA 93. In the Federal Court of Appeal case of Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica, CARL intervened jointly with the CCR on the type of review undertaken by the RAD when considering an appeal of an RPD decision. The Court agreed with CARL and CCR that the RAD should conduct its own independent assessment of the merits of the refugee claim. CARL counsel: Audrey Macklin and Anthony Navaneelan.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh
2016 FCA 96. CARL was an intervener in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, a Federal Court of Appeal case on the test for admission of new evidence before the Refugee Appeal Division. CARL argued that the test should respect Charter values and the principles of fundamental justice. CARL Counsel: Anthony Navaneelan and Aadil Mangalji
Kanthasamy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
2015 SCC 61 (CanLII), [2015] 3 SCR 909. CARL was an intervener. The Supreme Court found that Ministerial Guidelines regarding assessment ofHumanitarian and Compassionate applications under s. 25(1) were not binding and that the words “unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship” found in the Guidelines did not create discrete and high thresholds for granting relief. Officers must consider and give weight to all relevant humanitarian and compassionate considerations including the best interests of a child. Audrey Macklin, Joo Eun Kim and Laura Brittain represented CARL.
B010 v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
2015 SCC 58 (CanLII), [2015] 3 SCR 704. CARL was an intervener. The Supreme Court found that migrants who assist others in their flight to safety, or are fleeing to safety themselves are not inadmissible under s. 37(1)(b) of the IRPA, which renders individuals inadmissible for engaging in people smuggling. CARL was represented by Jennifer Bond, Andrew Brouwer and Erin Bobkin.
Y.Z. and CARL v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
2015 FC 892. CARL was a party. The Federal Court found that paragraph 110(2)(d.1) of the IRPA, which barred individuals from DCO countries from appealing decisions of the RPD to the RAD violated s. 15(1) of the Charter as it discriminated on the basis of national origin. The appeal bar was disproportionate and overbroad and therefore was not a reasonable limit on Charter rights. Jared Will represented CARL.
R. v. Appulonappa
2015 SCC 59. Before the Supreme Court in Appulonappa v. R., CARL intervened on the issue of whether section 7 of the Charter applies to inadmissibility proceedings brought against refugee claimants found guilty of people-smuggling. CARL Counsel: Andrew J. Brouwer, Erin Bobkin And Jennifer Bond
Peter v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), Savunthararasa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), and Etienne v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
2014 FC 1073, 2014 FC 1074, 2015 FC 415. In the related cases of Etienne v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), Peter v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) and Savunthararasa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), CARL was an intervener at the Federal Court level on the issue of the constitutionality of both the PRRA bar and the removals process itself. CARL Counsel: Andrew Brouwer and Richard Wazana.
Huruglica, et al v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
2014 FC 799. Lorem ipsum dolor.
Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, CARL et al v. AGC et al
2014 FC 651. CARL was a party. The Federal Court held that changes to the Interim Federal Health Program instituted by the Harper government in 2012 violated ss. 12 and 15 of the Charter. The Court found that the changes constituted cruel and unusual treatment and discriminated against refugee claimants from Designated Countries of Origin. CARL was represented by Pia Zambelli and Jacqueline Swaisland.
Febles v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
2014 SCC 68. Intervention before the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention excluding refugee claimants who have previously committed a “serious non-political crime.” The Court held the provision applies to anyone who has ever committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge. In terms of what constitutes a “serious crime” under Article 1F(b), consideration of whether a maximum sentence of ten years or more could have been imposed had the crime been committed in Canada is a useful guideline. However, the ten-year rule should not be applied in a mechanistic, decontextualized, or unjust manner. Counsel for CARL: Aviva Basman and Alyssa Manning
Kazemi v. Islamic Republic of Iran
2014 SCC 62. CARL intervened before the Supreme Court in the case of a woman tortured and killed by the Iranian government (Kazemi Estate v. Islamic Republic of Iran). CARL supported the right of victims of gross human rights violations to an effective remedy at international law. CARL counsel: Daniel Sheppard and Tamara Morgenthau
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al v. Harkat
2014 SCC 37. In the Supreme Court case of Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Harkat, CARL intervened to address the issue of the Charter breaches that may flow from the destruction of original investigative materials in security certificate proceedings. Carl Counsel: Marlys Edwardh and Adriel Weaver.